A subject I wanted to start off with is the many ways in which things declined after the collapse of the soviet union. One can find this in every detail.

For example, Aeroflot used to be the largest airliner in the world with a fleet of 3000 planes. Now it has like 300, and the biggest current airline has like 1000. Passengers carried decreased by more than 80% during the 90s and it's still lower than it used to be before the collapse. Russians are flying less often than 30 years ago.

Another common myth is that capitalism solved soviet consumer goods shortages. Whatever shortages there actually were before 1989, it only got worse afterwards. The minister of economy under Yeltsin claims they ended consumer goods shortages in the following video. What basically happened is that light industry (that is to say, consumer goods) dropped like 80%, they imported everything and called it a day. Shops were full cause no one could afford it anymore.

This is something that I've always wondered about but could all (or some) countries in the Warsaw Pact, excluding the USSR, be considered puppet states, or did they have enough autonomy to be considered fully sovereign nations?

they weren't puppet states. the most the USSR got involved in other socialist countries was with economic aid, and each individual state ran in their own unique ways (Poland not fully collectivising, Romania' s "national communism", the DDRs different economic plans, etc.)

as for things like the Soviet military it usually comes down to two things, those being the presence of Soviet troops in other states and physically using the military to intervene in the affairs of other countries within the Warsaw Pact.

military presence was something that all the Warsaw Pact states participated in, and was purely done in case of war which was a very big threat during those times (believe it or not). the Soviets of course having the largest military presence, since they were pretty much the military powerhouse in the socialist sphere and would stand the best chance against NATO.

as for military intervention, this was usually only done when the Soviets perceived serious threats to socialism, such as Dubček making socdem reforms to Czechoslovakia, and political instability in Afghanistan.

once Gorbachev came to power the USSR (not in an attempt to give other states "more freedom", but due to his non-intervention policies) pretty much left the Warsaw Pact to fight for itself in the late-80s,

I don't wanna take too much credit but it used to be that most anarchists had very vulgar and unnuanced takes on 20th century socialism and I kinda started going against the grain. But it's probably a bottleneck effect since there's not many anarchists around anymore.

What’s your view on the Hungarian Uprising of 1956? While it seems like it had some liberal/reactionary elements, it appears that the bulk of their demands were for greater political freedoms and a more open an genuine worker’s democracy, and weren’t fundamentally anti-socialist in nature. I can see how in the context of the Cold War, the Soviets would fear that they would fall into the western sphere and that they thought it better to intervene than risk that, but do you think their actions were justified?

The Hungarian 'revolution' of 1956 was almost completely of reactionary origin. Stating that "they wanted" vague things like "greater political freedom" is obtuse, its the fallacious argument the "loving and democratic" West makes to claim the soviets were "muh evul neo-nazis". The majority of the Hungarian conflict at the time was between Hungarians rather than the soviets, who only got involved when the Hungarian government called them in to stop the bloody civil war erupting in the streets.

Of course why anybody would fabricate the existence of such councils making such demands is beyond me. It certainly wouldn’t be in the interests of liberals or westerners to paint the uprising as an anti-revisionist socialist revolution.

>Even if Nagy himself wasn't a Counter-Rev much like Dubcek and Gorbs his reforms would have inevitably led to one

If you really believe that then what you are effectively saying that workers, if given democratic freedoms and freedom of expression, will reject socialism. Besides, that’s pure speculation. What can be said for sure is that the demands of the revolutionaries were entirely consistent with the aims of socialism, and cracking down on them with force showed that the Soviets cared more about their military hegemony in Hungary than about the interests or freedom of the workers.

>In 1969 it had an area of 3.2 km². The camp consisted of 150 buildings, including three medical facilities, a school, the film studio Artekfilm, three swimming pools, a stadium with a seating capacity of 7,000 and playgrounds for various other activities.

>Unlike most of the young pioneer camps, Artek was an all-year camp, due to the warm climate.

Vague cries for "freedom" is not an actual demand. The very link you sent demonstrates this well, with statements asking for the removal of corruption, but no detail as to what corruption or how with only one exact reference to Mihaly Farkas.

>how would their elections have been bourgeois?

In 1956 Khruschev's thaw resulted in many, MANY people being released from jail early, including many neo-nazis and other political scum who were itching to stir up trouble. They had the support of the former-bourgeoisie who had lost land during the socialization of the country after 1945. Hungary was especially high in such people since it was an ally of the Nazis in WW-2 and many people actively took part in the holocaust. Its main proponents

>why anybody would fabricate the existence of such councils making such demands is beyond me

Why are basically 100% of all the documents linking Katyn to the NKVD frauds? Why does any fabrication exist? To subvert. It is a well known fact that the USA and NATO were looking for any opportunity to de-stabilize the Warsaw pact, and exerted socio-economic pressure to that end.

The author this citation is from was Melvin Jonah Lasky an American journalist, and member of the anti-Communist left. He founded the German journal Der Monat in 1948 and, from 1958 to 1991, edited Encounter, one of many journals revealed to have been secretly funded by the CIA through the Congress for Cultural Freedom. Sounds like a real trustworthy source. Maybe you'd like to read something other than comfy psuedo-leftist crap?

>Hungary was especially high in such people since it was an ally of the Nazis in WW-2 and many people actively took part in the holocaust.

And what, you think that porkies use bourgeois magic to steal and rig any election from which they are not explicitly excluded? Of course not, they use specific mechanisms to influence the outcome such as bourgeois overrepresentation in politics, control of media, campaign donations, lobbyists, etc. Whatever bourgeois elements remained in the country clearly didn’t have access to capital or economic power necessary to do any of these things, and so would remain a marginalized minority. If socialism still lost in this context, then that’s a major indictment of the Hungarian socialist government, since a socialist government that fails to win the support of the working class is clearly incompetent and fundamentally flawed.

>Why are basically 100% of all the documents linking Katyn to the NKVD frauds? Why does any fabrication exist? To subvert.

So what’s the point of arguing with you if you will dismiss literally any evidence that contradicts your position as false? Even one of the sources you posted admitted the existence of worker’s councils. Saying that there were reactionary elements among them may be true, but saying that they didn’t exist is idiotic. I’m not so naive to think that there weren’t liberals and even fascists among be rebels, but it very clearly had a proletarian and to a significant degree socialist character, and this reflected in their demands.

> you think that porkies use bourgeois magic to steal and rig any election from which they are not explicitly excluded

This is exactly what I mean by being obtuse. Your logic ignores the fact that systems are not perfect and that the bourgeoisie were not, in fact, banned from elections they were demoted to being ordinary proletarians without private property or otherwise owning large amounts of wealth through sheer inheritance. Literally 1991 was canceled in Hungary of 1956 because there were enough class-conscious proletarians who were ready to fight to stop this disorder. You literally point out the fact that they used subversion, yet attempt to shoe in that they apparently;

>didn’t have access to capital or economic power necessary to do any of these things

Except that there was active pressure from the West, an influx of newly freed reactionaries and a naiive youth who were appealed to through propaganda. Or do you think things like Radio Free Europe did not reach people?

>if you will dismiss literally any evidence that contradicts your position as false

You presented 1 fucking link. It wasn't even a photo-copy of the original document, just a dubious citation printed in the book of a man well known for being a CIA funded shill and anti-communist. Then you cite me fucking WIKIPEDIA of all trash, (and phone posted no less), and you have the gall to say this?

You have most likely read none of my links, despite the fact that they are 10x the amount of information you have provided. And people wonder why anarchists are so hated, for contrived bullshit like this.

> one of the sources you posted admitted the existence of worker’s councils

I wasn't the one that denied them I simply explained the point.

>it very clearly had a proletarian and to a significant degree socialist character

This again; do you understand what manipulation means? This is like saying that Pol-pot was also socialist in character even though he had the CIA backing him.

Not quite stole, the Japanese and South Koreans carefully studied the soviet education system and planned economy and used that to Great Effect. It's why Japan is a leader in education systems by learning from and maintaining the old efficient and neat stuff of soviet schools.

>Your logic ignores the fact that systems are not perfect and that the bourgeoisie were not, in fact, banned from elections they were demoted to being ordinary proletarians without private property or otherwise owning large amounts of wealth through sheer inheritance.

And thus they were stripped of their ability to exercise hegemony as the would under normal circumstances, meaning that the will of the proletarian majority should easily be able to defeat them.

>Except that there was active pressure from the West, an influx of newly freed reactionaries and a naiive youth who were appealed to through propaganda.

So in other words you think that the Hungarian workers were too stupid to make the right decision, and that socialism had to be imposed on them regardless of their consent? As I said earlier, any socialist government that is incapable of winning the support of the working class is not deserving of the name, and doesn’t deserve to govern. Furthermore it’s impossible for socialism to be imposed on the people from above, it must be carried out by the democratic will of the workers, anything else is doomed to fail. Also, given the conditions at the time, it’s highly likely that the communist dominated coalition government would have won anyway. It’s obvious from the demands of the rebels that their concern wasn’t abolishing socialism, rather greater political and democratic freedoms as well as the assurance of national sovereignty.

>This again; do you understand what manipulation means?

It should probably occur to you that the only way your position makes any sense is if you assume that none of the demands the rebels were making were what they actually wanted, but were just cover for a secret reactionary agenda. Unless you have proof that Nagy’s government was planning to abolish socialism or joining NATO, or proof that the demands werent genuine, you have no evidence to suggest that the uprising was reactionary in nature. Alternatively, you could try to argue that the demands themselves were reactionary, however nobody in the thread seems to have even bothered to read them.

Most of which are tertiary or secondary in and of themselves or are improperly cited. post the actual links like you just did.

>thus they were stripped of their ability to exercise hegemony

Your argumentation would mean Hitler would never come to power. Charisma, and convincing, sweet words of imaginary 'freedoms' are more powerful than you think.

>the will of the proletarian majority should easily be able to defeat them

And they did, by calling upon their allies to put an end to the brewing civil war before it got too far.

>you think that the Hungarian workers were too stupid to make the right decision

Naiivety and stupidity is not the same thing, don't put words in my mouth.

>socialism had to be imposed on them

Does the words ALLIES TO NAZI GERMANY mean anything to you? Socialism in Hungary was like a tree growing from cement, you needed cracks in the reactionary class-collaborationist society of Hungary to build anything, but the cement is still there and still exerts pressure even as it is shunted aside.

>any socialist government that is incapable of winning the support of the working class

Except that the majority didn't support the bloody coup you nincompoop. As I have repeated, the majority of the Hungarian conflict was internal, between proles, one side being for socialism and the other being deluded by false promises of freedom under their "new socialism". You really expect porkies, insidious as they are, to be open in what they were doing? They tried that in 1939, didn't fucking work.

>bla bla bla muh authoritarionism

this is giving me a headache as to its utter idealism and black and white view on things.

> the only way your position makes any sense is if you assume that none of the demands the rebels were making were what they actually wanted, but were just cover for a secret reactionary agenda

Do you want to understand how a capitalist functions? Simple, they tell you what you wnat to hear so that you want it, even if you don't need it, or even if it is false. This same scenario occurred in 1968, where reactionary intellectuals, working with various political outcasts began actively infecting the government and the social environment and promoting false, shallow idealisms about freedom and democracy and how we're all oppressed. This is the sheer beauty of propaganda, it is a Big Lie, but with grains of truth to validate it in the eyes of an ordinary and mostly ignorant prole, because even the most well-read man will not know everything.

>Unless you have proof that Nagy’s government was planning to abolish socialism or joining NATO

Oh great this shit again, fucking ankids.

>you have no evidence to suggest that the uprising was reactionary in nature

One of their principle leaders was a literal nazi and many of the 'leaders' fled to the West who were already waiting for them and were greeted as martyrs… I wonder why the capitalists in the West were so enthusiastic to greet these "tru socialists".

>nobody in the thread seems to have even bothered to read them

I did, and I pointed out that they are vague and follow along the same old "more freedom, less corruption" bullshit that is literally one of the first protest cards the West would pull against the USSR at the hint of civil unrest.

>the assurance of national sovereignty

Ethno-nationalism is not a good thing, coming from an anarchist this is true irony.

If you want my "proofs" actually read what I sent in detail and do some fucking research outside your own personal cherry-pickings.

The USA and NATO were looking and acting in Eastern Europe, East-Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania etc. were all targets because they were not originally part of the USSR or otherwise had histories of anti-communist sentiment prior to the Warsaw-pact being formed. Hungary was no exception.

East Germany formed the Berlin Wall BECAUSE of these provocations, including bombings of airports:

The West has made no bones about its aims in the East and only hides the critical information needed to stop it, or unilaterally condemn it. Now that the USSR is gone, they do the latter openly as well.

“In order to encourage the establishment of governments that have been elected freely in the “satellites” as a means of disorganization, and not as an end in itself, you should be ready in any case, covertly and under the appropriate guidance to help the nationalists in every way in which independence from the Soviet domination is possible and where the consistency of the US and the “free world” will not be endangered by it." -(See. National Security Council Report NSC 5608/1,” US Policy towards the Soviet Satellites in Eastern Europe “, July 18, 1956 ).

Lmao do you think Hitler was democratically elected? He relied on SA violence and intimidation to repress opposition parties and even then never got a majority of the vote, then proceeded to terrorize the opposition into practical non-existence.

>Charisma, and convincing, sweet words of imaginary 'freedoms' are more powerful than you think.

So then you don't trust the workers to govern themselves.

>And they did, by calling upon their allies to put an end to the brewing civil war before it got too far

Do you have a source that shows the majority supported the status quo and opposed Nagy's government?

>Naiivety and stupidity is not the same thing, don't put words in my mouth.

In practical terms they produce the same result, mainly that you dont trust the working class to govern itself.

>Socialism in Hungary was like a tree growing from cement, you needed cracks in the reactionary class-collaborationist society of Hungary to build anything, but the cement is still there and still exerts pressure even as it is shunted aside.

Except repression wasn't limited to actual reactionaries, ie people demanding an end to socialism in Hungary. It was used against anybody who took a different line from the government, regardless of whether or not they wanted socialism. Revolutionary terror is a key tool that we shouldnt shy away from, but to use it against fellow socialists and supporters of the revolutionary movement is tantamount to treason.

>Simple, they tell you what you wnat to hear so that you want it, even if you don't need it, or even if it is false.

If this is true then you should be able to provide a single shred of evidence (in a language I can actually read) that the leading elements of the uprising had intentions different than those they expressed in their demands.

>This same scenario occurred in 1968, where reactionary intellectuals, working with various political outcasts began actively infecting the government and the social environment and promoting false, shallow idealisms about freedom and democracy and how we're all oppressed.

If you think that the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of political organization within the confines of socialism, and the right for workers to freely and independently organize are "shallow idealisms" instead of critical features of a genuine socialist society then you are deluded. You clearly care nothing for the actual ability of the working class to govern itself through proletarian democracy.

>One of their principle leaders was a literal nazi and many of the 'leaders' fled to the West who were already waiting for them and were greeted as martyrs… I wonder why the capitalists in the West were so enthusiastic to greet these "tru socialists".

Many more of them had links to the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 and the anti-fascist resistance in the country. Are you seriously going to tell me that these people were closet reactionaries?

>I did, and I pointed out that they are vague and follow along the same old "more freedom, less corruption" bullshit

Then you're illiterate, because the demands were far more concrete and specific than that. They specifically called for the holding of elections both within the communist party and to the national legislature, a withdrawal of the Soviet occupation forces, and an end to state repression of opposition parties.

>Ethno-nationalism is not a good thing, coming from an anarchist this is true irony.

I'm not an anarchist, and there's a difference between ethnonationalism and calls for an end to a foreign military occupation and the establishment of equal bilateral foreign relations.

>he USA and NATO were looking and acting in Eastern Europe, East-Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania etc. were all targets because they were not originally part of the USSR or otherwise had histories of anti-communist sentiment prior to the Warsaw-pact being formed. Hungary was no exception.

Nobody is denying that the west had predatory, subversive aims against the Soviet Union and its allies in Europe, however that fact in and of itself does not prove that the uprising in Hungary was the product of those efforts. If you want me to read your links then post sources in English.

>do you think Hitler was democratically elected? He relied on SA violence and intimidation to repress opposition parties and even then never got a majority of the vote, then proceeded to terrorize the opposition into practical non-existence.

Exactly my point, Hitler rammed dthrough the "democratic elections" through coercion and charisma, the NSDAP was a minority party yet made a massive leap into power by riding the wave of political events. The same thing applies here. Stalin had died, Khruschev began his liberalization of the Warsaw pact and to do so attacked Stalin while releasing political enemies of socialism. These same enemies could now go home and, supported by Khruschev's claims, spread the stories of the oppreshun under de evul russkies and their communism, and use that street-cred to ride the waves of instability into power, whether it be through coup or other means.

>then you don't trust the workers to govern themselves

Fallacious over-simplification. The workers don't magically become all-knowing competent beings after the revolution, in the USSR it took over 2 decades to get remote, islamic regions of the country to start becoming civilized and stop following Sharia law, and thus stop things like Burkha's and stoning women. Inb4 "muh civilized Europe" the Hungarians have a long and rich history of ethno-nationalism, racism and other reactionary ideals and that does not vanish within a decade. Workers are people, people are not infallible, therefore any worker can be manipulated, we only have to look at the USA and its millions of anti-communist "leftists". Not every person is equal in ability and socialism has never denied that, not everyone has the ability to make logical, sound decisions. Your idealistic accusation is like saying that chronic late stage schizophrenics should be allowed to make decisions, and that if you think otherwise, you think they're subhuman.

>a source that shows the majority supported the status quo and opposed Nagy's government

Do you have a source that Nagy was all that popular? The very workers decree you sent says nothing for the support of Nagy either. Not to mention that populist popularity =/= workers support.

>practical terms they produce the same result

Yes, but their origins are vastly different. This is like saying 2+2 and 400/100 are the same thing, sure they both = 4, but they're different equations.

>you dont trust the working class to govern itself.

Accusations and slander as usual.

>repression wasn't limited to actual reactionaries

And here we go again. In the USSR and its neighboring states, repressions affected less than 5% of the population as according to Victor Zemskov. To say that all these repressed people or that most were innocent is bullshit, and lacks evidence of such accusation.

> It was used against anybody who took a different line from the government

Uhh, no. This is Eastern Europe, not Mao's China, you are outright stating western mass-media cliches.

>to use it against fellow socialists and supporters of the revolutionary movement is tantamount to treason

Fellow socialists my arse, if Nagy is a socialist, so is Bernie Sanders. Suppressing counter-revolutionaries is the duty of the working class, just because they claimed that they were for socialism does not make them so. And just because 1 or 2 workers councils did not outright denounce socialism does not deny the fact that among said 'socialists' were people who happily worked for the Nazis and who did the same shit Dubcek did, by claiming to have this magic new socialism that will make all the issues currently at hand go away, despite the fact that the issues in Hungary at the time were largely the result of the massive growth after the transition to socialism going so fast that there was an expected lag afterwards. The majority of actions that took place in Hungary was between the Hungarians themselves, the USSR basically was on standby and was there to prevent things from boiling over into an open civil war.

I'll give an example, since you are so adamant because spoon-feeding is SO much

fun.

Bela Kiraly: Supporter of the pro-Nazi Hungarian regime before liberation by the Soviets, who fought in the war and presided for at least a month over the city Koszeg, known for its Jewish concentration camp. After the war, he received a pardon from Stalin and was even allowed to enter the Communist Party of the country. Comrade Stalin even gave him a post in the army. But in 1956 the ever-opportunistic worm decided that wasn't enough. However, having been stopped he led, humiliated and hated, westward. The former Nazi, former Communist and ex-fascist became a supporter of Western regimes. After 1991, this coward, Nazi turncoat, hypocrite and a traitor, returned to Hungary, where he was proclaimed a”hero” and was appointed the leader of the celebration of the rebellion committee. And while the fascist thugs been immersed in the privileges and luxuries of the new Nazi era, we see the people suffer renazistificação. People were being persecuted by the color of their clothes (to wear a red star or hammer and sickle is enough to send someone to prison) while the local CP suffers persecution and threats of being banned.

The traitor Imre Nagy is a main culprit, who also led this bloody coup attempt in the name of socialism. This man is treated as a hero today by the new (anti-communist and highly nationalist) Hungarian regime. They even built a statue of commemoration to him. Why would a regime that openly opposes communism would support a “communist” as he? However, the lies of the regime do not end here. They took a further step with a direct attack on historical truth. The fascist rebellion was called ”democratic”. The events that prove their fascist nature were silenced and it is omitted that the leaders of this "democratic fight" were in fact Nazis who led the rebellion, who were all supporters of the Hungarian regime that led the country into World War II. They are the same ones who fled to the West for fear of being humiliated by the communists. They are the rich, bourgeois landowners looking to get back their private property and wealth.

I happen to know a man of Hungarian origin who participated in the 1956 events. He tells me that much of that revolution was not so much Soviet soldiers killing Hungarians but Hungarians killing each other (hardliner communists vs Nagy supporters). The Hungarian Revolution was nothing more than a foreign provocation, as had been done in Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Iraq, South Korea, Malaysia etc.

Soon, it became clear that none of the ruined nations of East Europe could hope for reconstruction loans from Washington, unless they remade their governments to suit the USA. To some extent they were willing to do this. Bulgaria changed its cabinet at Washington’s order and postponed an election when America protested its form. All of the East European nations hoped for American loans and were willing to make adjustments. They offered industrial concessions to foreign capital; they were ready to postpone socialism, as Lenin did in the days of NEP. Nor did Moscow object to this; Moscow was not at all anxious to take on the economic problems of East Europe, in addition to her own. If these lands could get American loans by concessions to capitalism, Moscow was not disposed to interfere. In the first years after victory– Moscow handled affairs in East Europe with a loose hand. Americans supposed the arriving Red Army would at once “sovietize” these eastern nations, nationalize industry, collective farms. American correspondents were amazed to discover that the Red Army did not even stop King Michael’s jailing of Communists; they called it Romania’s affair. When I was in Poland in 1945, it was “treason” to urge collective farming, lest this alienate the peasant. Moscow intended to have “friendly nations” on her border but many of Moscow’s acts in 1945-46–the long tolerance of King Michael’s brutally reactionary regime in Romania, the lack of Russian support to Communists fighting in Greece, the calling off of Bulgarian elections because of an American protest, the acceptance of three Poles from London into the Warsaw cabinet–indicated that Stalin would make many concessions in East Europe to keep his wartime friendship with Britain and the United States.

Shane Mage (an anti-soviet), “What a cruel, cynical joke of history this seems to be! The Hungarian revolution is hailed lyrically by the rulers of the ‘West,’ the worst enemies of socialism and of the Russian revolution. The men who surrounded the infant Soviet Republic with a ‘cordon sanitaire’ of steel and fire, who hailed Hitler and Mussolini as bulwarks against Bolshevism, who stood by with smiling ‘neutrality’ while Franco murdered freedom in Spain, whose hands are still stained by the crimes of Algeria, Suez, Guatemala—the ‘Free’ world gleefully hands its poisoned bouquets to the freedom fighters of Hungary.” —“The Meaning of Two Revolutions” (reprinted in the 1959 Young Socialist Forum pamphlet, The Hungarian Revolution)

>If you think that the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of political organization within the confines of socialism, and the right for workers to freely and independently organize are "shallow idealisms"

They are because in and of themselves they mean nothing. This is literally the same shill capitalist argument used by Porkies, your repetition of it is very suspicious.

Freedom of expression? What about freedom to live and not risk having your shop blown up because some CIA chill wants to fuck with the government? What exactly were they lacking? The freedom to print porn? The freedom to print fascist and revisionist propaganda? Freedom to be libertines? Because that's where that leads.

>Are you seriously going to tell me that these people were closet reactionaries

Sure, the Hungarian Soviet Republic of 1919 was not essentially the socialist system you are thinking of. They had naz-bol tendencies for one thing.

>the demands were far more concrete and specific than that

No, no they weren't you need to learn to read into things. Bold, glaring statements and demands like those are surface level to anyone who does more than read facebook rants. Those demands are on par with, "if we get rid of Trump that'll solve all the issues"

>called for the holding of elections both within the communist party and to the national legislature

Again, that is very vague, why would those elections matter at all? If they were so adamant a proper set of referendums would be in order to call for said re-elections.

>withdrawal of the Soviet occupation forces

>Muh occupation.

There you go, shallow as hell. A selfish desire to be "indiependint" in spite of the fact that said "occupational forces" were there to ward off a potential NATO invasion, not to mention prevent the reactionary uprising the occurred from blowing out of proportion.

>I'm not an anarchist

Then why post with an anarchist flag? And spout anarchist talking points for that matter?

>here's a difference between ethnonationalism and calls for an end to a foreign military occupation

Yes there is, and that difference clearly shows that said calls were nationalist tripe.

>establishment of equal bilateral foreign relations

See herein lies the problem do you genuinely think that said bi-lateral relations would be perfectly civil and there would be no subversion… Inb4 "muh proof" there is no proof of this exactly with Hungary because the USSR stopped it before it began. However experiences in Guatemala, Chile and Iran as well as the other nations I mentioned demonstrate that it was valid to distrust such ideas.

>hat fact in and of itself does not prove that the uprising in Hungary was the product of those efforts

Throughout the late 1940s the USSR made it a public and open policy that the Eastern European nations had their own right to self-determination, and most chose socialism, Austria for example did not, and became part of NATO despite being liberated by the USSR in 1945. Then the Warsaw Pact formed, and suddenly, out of the blue, in 1956 we have riots in Hungary over things that would normally only require a referendum or formal complaint yet instead it blew into a full-blown coup attempt… why? Why would that happen? Czechoslovakia, reactionary beginnings as it was, had far more preluding its events, and there was fault in the Party as there was in the people, but in Hungary such faults were at best the issues of local-implementation, rather than systemic flaw…

>pos english

just translate it with google, stop being lazy. Not everything even has english sources, such as Soviet Cybernetics

128. The above is a summary of views put forward by official spokesmen for the Governments of the USSR and of Mr. Kádár. Those Governments have maintained that the Hungarian uprising was planned well in advance, carefully thought out and directed during the fighting by leaders supplied or guided from abroad and by foreign broadcasting stations. The Committee gave thorough consideration to the possibility that the up rising may have been planned in advance, but it could find no evidence to justify any such hypothesis. The Committee is convinced that the demonstrators on 23 October had at first no thought of violence. When arms were obtained by the insurgents, they were almost always seized by workers from depots known to them or were voluntarily handed over by Hungarian troops, by the regular Hungarian police - not the ÁVH - and even, in some cases, by Russian troops themselves.

129. After its study of all the facts, the Committee has no doubt that the Hungarian uprising was not only nation-wide, but also spontaneous in character. The Committee was meticulous in its questioning on this point and sought to discover in various ways the possibility of advance preparation. But the way in which great numbers of people, who could not possibly have shared secret orders in advance, organized themselves to press their demands and to fight the Soviet troops seems to the Committee to bear the hallmark of improvisation. Their efforts collapsed because of the Soviet armed intervention and because no support was forthcoming for them from abroad. The thesis which alleges that the uprising owed its origin to such support from abroad did not survive the examination to which the Committee subjected it.

The Committee has, indeed, noted that several times during the last week of October and the first days of November prominent personalities drew attention to the need to be on the alert for signs of counter-revolution.(15) On 2 November, Gyula Kelemen, the Secretary- General of the Social Democratic Party, wrote: “Let our peasant members unite their forces to frustrate all attempts to restore the large estates.”(16) While the Committee has noted this and similar warnings, it feels that there was never, at any time a serious danger of counterrevolution in Hungary. The very few dispossessed land owners still living in that country exercised no influence either with the leaders or with the rank and file of those who took part in the uprising. No suggestion was entertained to return the estates to the former landowners or to undo the nationalization of Hungarian industry. Even aristocratic landowners such as Prince Pál Eszterházy repudiated any such intention, while Cardinal Mindszenty personally told one witness early in November that he had no intention of claiming the return of the great Church estates, but was proposing to ask for the reopening of Catholic schools. “Let no one dream”, said Béla Kovács, leader of the Smallholders’ Party, “of the old world returning: the

world of the counts, the bankers and the capitalists is gone forever.”(17)

In its extensive examination of developments between 23 October and 4 November, the Committee found no evidence whatsoever to suggest that any political personality associated with the pre-war régime exerted the slightest influence on events. At no time was there a demand for any such personality to be included in the new Government. Moreover, it is a point of interest that the question of a counter-revolution seems not to have been raised by the Soviet authorities during their negotiations with the Government of Mr. Nagy. The Government which he was forming in the early days of November was a coalition composed of the parties included in the Hungarian National Independence Front of 1945. The parties composing this Independence Front had been sanctioned by the Allied Control Commission, on which the Government of the USSR was represented.

He says having only posted the UN report after I pointed out that Wikipedia is garbage.

I know that report fairly well and its bullshit, all the "witnesses" were part of the coup attempt or otherwise linked to it. Not a single main witness from the other side, not a single damn testimony, just piles upon piles of "muh suppression". The UN was under the thumb of the USA, and the USSR's power was minimal, especially as it was viewed as a part of the events and therefore was largely excluded from the committee. Considering how the UN ignored and continues to ignore multiple violations and other such things done by the USA, ISrael and Saudia Arabia, I have no faith in its objectivity in martial matters.

It's also worth noting that even the sources you posted make no mention of counter-revolutionary or anti-socialist demands, by any of the parties in Nagy's government or even by any of the worker's councils or prominent leaders of the rebels. Going over them we can identify a few things that may be construed as counter revolutionary, but most are symbolic at most, like the removal of socialist symbols from public view. The lynching of members of the communist party could be interpreted either way, since it was clearly aimed at people with prominent links to Rakosi's government and the AVO. That's hardly the smoking gun of counter revolution, especially when you consider that similar things happened during the cultural revolution in China. In other words, your sources provide no definite evidence of counter-revolutionary intention among the rebels, or at least not among enough of them to outweigh the pro-socialist and pro-democratic elements.

>Going over them we can identify a few things that may be construed as counter revolutionary, but most are symbolic at most, like the removal of socialist symbols from public view.

Yeah that's not just "construed" as counter-revolutionary. A symbol is not just an object, it has meaning, and the removal of a symbol is the demeaning of a symbol.

>The lynching of members of the communist party could be interpreted either way

No, no it couldn't. This wasn't angry parents or friends taking revenge, this was just murder and hatred based on ethnicity and ideology. they murdered them and strung them up in cold blood, calling them communist swine… very pro-socialist behaviour.

>literally cites the official government and Soviet interpretations of the case

But nothing in that link contradicts anything I said. I never denied that communist party members were killed, I never denied that there may have been reactionary elements among the rebels, and I never denied that the west sought to take advantage of the situation for its own ends. My position has always been that the bulk of the uprising, including its leaders, and the members of Nagy’s government, never displayed anti-socialist demands or intentions. So far nobody has been able to cite any major or widespread examples of calls to abolish socialism or restore capitalism.

>never denied that there may have been reactionary elements among the rebels

Yet you keep trying to claim that the actions were anti-socialist, as if the fact that reactionary elements are ingrained in it are not relevant?

>the bulk of the uprising, including its leaders, and the members of Nagy’s government, never displayed anti-socialist demands or intentions

Open ones? Of course not, only an idiot would openly say "fuck socialism" under a socialist system and try to get power seriously. The same reason why no serious presidential candidate in the USA would never try to call themselves an open nazi.

Nagy was anti-socialist the way Gorbachev was, both shielded themselves under the claim of "re-newing and creating better socialism", when in fact they were taking it apart by the seams.

You're being obtuse again. This has nothing to do with "soviet Aesthetic" The Red Flag and Red Star has been a socialist symbol for a lng time before the USSR, and so has the Hammer and Sickle motif. The whole point of the Chinese cultural revolution was to destroy the symbols of Old China, and it worked (unfortunately) and the old-ways and culture of China is largely lost to the masses.

>do you think the Cultural Revolution was a counter revolution as well

Not a counter-revolution per se but more of a terrible revolutionary blunder. It was a massive mistake and I think it was the worst decision Mao ever made, and that includes the grain reforms.

>Red Guards lynched party members and attacked party buildings.

And they were wrong for it, they were being morons, but the basis was different. The Cultural Revolution was in response TO Western influence, but was based on Western influence. The Cultural revolution rejected and attacked nationality and ethnicity, the Hungarian events were ethno-nationalist.

In other words, the Cultural revolution was the opposite of the Hungarian revolt in origin and aims, but had the same results.

>Yet you keep trying to claim that the actions were anti-socialist, as if the fact that reactionary elements are ingrained in it are not relevant?

As far as their actual ability to exercise any influence they were irrelevant. The various parties in Nagy's coalition government, as well as all the revolutionary worker's committees unanimously declared their support for maintaining the socialist mode of production in Hungary. At a national meeting of these councils, Hungarian military officer, former anti-fascist partisan and supporter of the revolution stated

>""We have fought and some of us have died in the cause of an independent, socialist Hungary… The purpose of this meeting is to lay the foundations of a new armed force in our country. This force is born of the insurrection, but we must ensure that reactionary elements, wanting to establish the old prewar regime, don't worm their way into it. That regime, fortunately, is dead. and there will never be capitalists or landowners in Hungary again."

His statement was supported unanimously by the assembly.

>Nagy was anti-socialist the way Gorbachev was, both shielded themselves under the claim of "re-newing and creating better socialism", when in fact they were taking it apart by the seams.

Again, you have no evidence for this.

>You're being obtuse again. This has nothing to do with "soviet Aesthetic"

Regardless, if you place its treatment of symbols over the class character and political demands of a movement then you're probably an idealist and are spooked.

>And they were wrong for it, they were being morons, but the basis was different.

But they weren't counter revolutionaries.

>the Hungarian events were ethno-nationalist.

Again, there's nothing to support this. The demands consistent to all elements of the revolution was the withdrawal of Soviet troops and the recognition of Hungarian neutrality. If you are seriously going to tell me that that's ethno nationalism then you are clearly arguing in bad faith.

No, they mean concrete political rights and protections that ensure the integrity of worker's democracy.

>Freedom of expression? What about freedom to live and not risk having your shop blown up because some CIA chill wants to fuck with the government? What exactly were they lacking? The freedom to print porn? The freedom to print fascist and revisionist propaganda? Freedom to be libertines?

The freedom to do what I described earlier, ie criticize the government, freely advocate one's position, and a system that puts actual democratic power in the hands of the worker's. Rakosi's regime is known to be among the most repressive in the Eastern Bloc, so these were freedoms that did not exist under his rule. There was no genuine democracy, and without democracy there can be no genuine socialism.

>Again, that is very vague, why would those elections matter at all? If they were so adamant a proper set of referendums would be in order to call for said re-elections.

They didnt need a referendum. They had already elected the worker's councils which voted to hold free elections.

>A selfish desire to be "indiependint" in spite of the fact that said "occupational forces" were there to ward off a potential NATO invasion, not to mention prevent the reactionary uprising the occurred from blowing out of proportion.

So you don't think that independent countries should have the right to decide whether or not they allow a foreign country to station troops on their soil?

>Austria for example did not, and became part of NATO despite being liberated by the USSR in 1945

Austria isn't part of NATO and never has been.

>and suddenly, out of the blue, in 1956 we have riots in Hungary over things that would normally only require a referendum or formal complaint yet instead it blew into a full-blown coup attempt… why? Why would that happen?

It didn't happen out of the blue. It happened when the AVH fired on protesting students who were demonstrating with government permission. The Soviets recognized that the situation in Hungary was highly precarious beforehand, which is why they ousted Rakosi and made Nagy PM. Rakosi's government was intensely unpopular, and popular discontent had been growing for years. The suppression of the students was the final straw.

If it was so great, what was 1989? The collapse? Look at what the Soviets did to "improve" agriculture in Uzbekistan. What was once the Aral Sea is a poisoned lake with thrice the salinity of the dead sea, where nothing can live. And the fishing industry it supported is long gone. Not to mention the Purges (there were several, not just 1938), Gulag Archipelago, and countless 9mm slugs to the back of the head which we all know about.

>A whole Volga of the people's grief!

(USER WAS SHOT IN THE BACK OF THE HEAD FOR THIS POST, HEAD DISCOVERED TO BE HOLLOW)

>it only ever took Budapest in its entire existence and 99% of the rest of the country remained under HPR control

That's not true, most communities were brought under the control of revolutionary worker's and peasant's councils.

>Consolidation was under way in the provinces and villages, although the party resolution had little to do with this. The rapid change of power and the almost immediate settlement there were due to several factors. The villages contained no effective apparatus of power able to intervene against the people with any hope of success. By the time the village demonstrations began on October 27 and 28, the old order no longer had reserves to deploy. If the representatives of power waited for the demonstrators to arrive at all, they simply handed over the keys of the council <local government> office without resistance. Then a local national council <revolutionary councils and committees> would form, with members who had often served in the old council apparatus, which ensured continuity and professionalism in local government.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. They invaded precisely because they were certain that the Hungarian army would defect en masse if Nagy failed to contain the unrest. Until then the only security force that had consistently failed to defect either to the insurgents or support Nagy's reforms was the AVH. Even Soviet troops were seen fraternizing with the rebels.

>supported the Socialist goverment that had been formed outside of Budapest by Kadar and restored a socialist goverment not led by a tight ass like Rakosi or a Idealist / Counter-Rev like Nagy

Not sure how Nagy was a counter rev while Kadar wasn't. Kadar's Goulash Communism was basically want Nagy wanted, minus the multi-party elections, withdrawal from the Warsaw Pact and declaration of neutrality.

>>2660853

>Yes and the Soviets originally supported Nagy's reforms until it became obvious it was going to lead almost certainly to a counter-Revolution

They supported them until Nagy announced Hungarian neutrality. Also while it's true that Kruschev believed that Nagy may lost control of the situation to genuine reactionaries, this view was largely coloured by the events of October 30th, when a mob attacked and killed a number of AVH agents. An act that was denounced by Nagy's government as well as the worker's councils. I'm really not sure where the idea that an actual counter revolution was imminent is coming from. This was a mass uprising, and in such a scenario there are bound to be many elements among the rebels, and indeed there were likely reactionaries among them. However these couldn't have been a major political force, at least not in any organized capacity, since no counter-revolutionary agendas materialized among the worker's councils or any of the parties in Nagy's coalition. Even reprehensible events like those of Oct 30 are generally cases of mob violence and excess brought on by chaotic conditions, not organized attempts to purge the country of communism.

Basically every argument that the revolution was reactionary boils down to incidents of killing party members, or the destruction of communist symbolism. The former is disproven as genuinely counter revolutionary because these killings primarily targetted AVH agents, who were known to be brutal enforcers of Rakosi's regime and were the main force opposing the rebels. Many other party members became leaders in Nagy's government, and others were early leaders of the rebellion. It's not as if communists were being systematically persecuted just for being party members. As for the issue of communist symbolism, placing symbols above the actual class character and goals of a movement is pure idealism. The assertion of an imminent counter-revolution that would overthrow Nagy and bring back capitalism isn't supported by any evidence, since there weren't any demands to do this from any organized forces such as revolutionary committees. Additionally, insisting on what would have happened is pure speculation and totally ahistorical. It's equally ahistorical to assert that Nagy was a proto-Gorbachev planning to re-introduce capitalism by reform. Once again this is speculation, and its speculation that is not supported by any evidence, since neither Nagy nor anybody in his cabinet nor any of the non-communist parties were calling for abolishing socialism. In fact by all indications, the opposite was true on all levels, with every organized element both among the insurgents and the government affirming their support for Hungary to become a neutral, independent, socialist democracy.

>Yugoslavia's Neutrality was basically bought by the west in order to divide the Socialist camp and the WP

No it wasn’t. Yugoslavia broke from the USSR because they refused to heed Stalin’s orders to abandon the KKE to be murdered by Nazi collaborators and western imperialists. In response Stalin tried to have Tito killed and Tito told him to fuck off and went his own route. They also never gave up their independence to either side. And again, saying that x or y would have definitely happened is pure speculation, it’s ahistorical and unfalsifiable.

this is the Aral Sea. In the 1960s, Soviet researchers predicted the complete evaporation of the body of water, and a river used to irrigate farmland had the excess water siphoned into the lake. This was, however, expensive, and during the privitisations (and subsequent economic catastrophe) of the 1980s, the plan was abandoned. After Kazakhstan seceded, ultra-intensive cotton farming practices and infrastructure mismanagement (most water running through irrigation to the farms evaporated on the way there) accelerated the shrinkage. Most of the former Aral Sea is a desert.

They just drape themselves, it really isn't a secret that Alexander isn't a good communist by any right. But we do have a lot of socialist, and the government does a lot to combat reactionary pro-west bullshit.

I don't know much about diplomacy, but I guess this is just Russia trying to keep us out of American control, as it failed to do with Ukraine. Russia and Belarus have basically had a BeNaLux type relationship since the Federation and Republic were formed.

for one 1956, although having some genuine roots among socialists, was hijacked by opportunists and started the conflict which is when the soviets sent in the tanks

as for prague spring how can anyone honestly not support the soviets getting involved? dubcek was literally the czech gorbachev and he, along with others loyal to him, became socdems later in their lives (fun fact gorbachev also praised the dubcek's "socialism with a human face" model)

he wanted to reform czechoslovakia away from socialist lines and thats when the warsaw pact intervened.

the soviets didn't enact "imperialism" or any bullshit like that. they were not exploiting foreign capital, nor did they continue to occupy the country after things had calmed down.

if you honestly think dubcek was in the right you're supporting a socdem revisionist who wanted to revert socialism.

i find it funny how supposed "anti-imperialists" will try to smear the soviets, and show that they don't even know what imperialism is and think imperialism can just be "when da military does stuff to other countries"

stop shilling for literal socdems against those trying to safeguard socialism

>As of the late 1970s, for example, Poland’s state-owned steel company, Zjednoczenie Hutnictwa Zelasa i Stali, was bigger than Great Britain’s at the time. It ranked one notch ahead of Bethlehem Steel Corporation and one behind United States Steel in the world output listing. The People’s Republic of Poland also became a major copper producer and exporter, not to mention the fourth largest coal producer in the world – behind the US, Russia and China. During the 1970s, the Polish mining industry was so modernised that it even sold machinery and expertise to America.

>Hungary became the largest manufacturer of cross-country and city buses in all of Europe. Throughout the 1970s, the Ikarus factory exported these buses to the US where they were used by municipal transit systems in Portland, Oregon and Los Angeles. The Hungarian People’s Republic also planned an assault on the electronics and data processing market with a state-owned company called Videoton (started in 1969) located in Budapest. By the late 1970s, it was doing more than $300 million worth of business annually.

>Bulgaria completely industrialised its agricultural sector in the same time period, operating 170 agro-industrial complexes which provided all of Europe with fresh fruits and vegetables, high-quality canned goods and preserves. One of Bulgaria’s government-owned companies also managed Europe’s largest international trucking fleet which carried tomatoes from Sofia to Denmark, Black Sea grapes to Holland and West German tools to Turkey.

>in 1947 did the USSR force all the countries in the Eastern Bloc to reject needed aid from the Marshall Plan

"The proclamation of this doctrine meant that the United States government has moved towards a direct renunciation of the principles of international collaboration and concerted action by the great powers and towards attempts to impose its will on other independent states, while at the same time obviously using the economic resources distributed as relief to individual needy nations as an instrument of political pressure. This is clearly proved by the measures taken by the United States government with regard to Greece and Turkey which ignore and bypass the United Nations as well as by the measures proposed under the so-called Marshall Plan in Europe. This policy conflicts sharply with the principle expressed by the General Assembly in its resolution of 11 December 1946, which declares that relief supplies to other countries "should … at no time be used as a political weapon."" (Vyshinsky speech to the U.N. General Assembly in September 1947). The accusation is largely true, almost all recipients of the Marshall Plan were also part of NATO, rather tightly knit for a coincidence. Vyshinsky mentions the Truman Doctrine with purpose as well. In Truman's presentation of it to Congress we see, "The United States has received from the Greek Government an urgent appeal for financial and economic assistance." (President Harry S. Truman's Address before a Joint Session of Congress, March 12, 1947). The mentioned appeal seems neutral, until one understands the context, the Greek Civil war (1946-1949), when ex-Greek Partisans of WW 2 and the communists that had been their backbone resisted the attempt of the British to return their vassal king to the throne of Greece. The aid of the Marshall Plan was used here to support a pro-US government, and while not a common example it demonstrated the underlying purpose. After Tehran and Yalta, the re-divison of Europe was agreed upon by the allies, however, whilst FDR had been trusting and respectful of Stalin, who reciprocated the feelings, Truman was very different and his antagonism threw a wrench in the originla plans of the agreements, twisting it away from a de-conflicted division and into a standoff between East and West. Furthermore Winston Churchill's famed Iron Curtain Speech at Fulton, was an additional push towards the ignition of two sided conflict in a world just finished with the devastating massacre that was World War II. The ever-wiley Churchill stated, "It is my duty, however, to place before you certain facts about the present position in Europe. From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe…. ; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow. The safety of the world, ladies and gentlemen, requires a unity in Europe, from which no nation should be permanently outcast. It is from the quarrels of the strong parent races in Europe that the world wars we have witnessed, or which occurred in former times, have sprung. Twice the United States has had to send several millions of its young men across the Atlantic to fight the wars. But now we all can find any nation, wherever it may dwell, between dusk and dawn. Surely we should work with conscious purpose for a grand pacification of Europe within the structure of the United Nations and in accordance with our Charter. In a great number of countries, far from the Russian frontiers and throughout the world, Communist fifth columns are established and work in complete unity and absolute obedience to the directions they receive from the Communist center." (Modern History Sourcebook: Winston S. Churchill: "Iron Curtain Speech", March 5, 1946). This was the beginning of yet another Red Scare, one that would re-invoked many times in defence of 'US Democracy and Freedom'.

Your argument is that it was entirely socialist, when in fact it was clearly hijacked by Reactionaries. You also claim that it was the AVH that started it despite the fact that there was far more to it and the events that sparked said shooting are muddled by false testimony and red-scare fear mongering.

This was already addressed, just SHUT UP and post stuff that isn't an argument about "muh repressed proles" Go start a seerate thread on that. This is a thread about DAILY LIFE in the Warsaw Pact, those events were not even close to 'daily'.

>your argument is that it was entirely socialist, when in fact it was clearly hijacked by Reactionaries.

In what sense was it "hijacked"? These supposed reactionaries never seemed to have manifested themselves in literally any of the organized bodies of the revolution, even if they were scattered among the general public. Even Aptheker's book only points to instances of reactionary presence, but fails to give any real demonstration of them having any real influence over the uprising itself.

> supposed reactionaries never seemed to have manifested themselves in literally any of the organized bodies of the revolution

This again… although I shouldn't expect any less from an anarchist… You literally think a UN paper whose main witnesses were an ex-nazi and a salty succ dem among others is a fair analysis of the Hungarian Revolt.

>any real demonstration of them having any real influence

Let me explain this through analogy because you seem to miss the point otherwise.

Do you know the Giant squid? Well, for a long time there was no conclusive evidence it ever existed, only fables and stories. The only physical remains to be identified were the sucker-scars on sperm-whale's heads. To actually find them we needed to dive deep under and scour the Oceans.

You are honestly telling me that it was not reactionaries but COMMUNISTS who raided communist homes and lynched communists and who shaved womens heads and poured pig blood on them while parading them naked down the street, calling them vile commie scum? Because all that and far more happened. You cannot justify this by saying "b-but the AVH fired first"

That was a few victims, killed instantly through shoooting, and the situation is very unclear as different sides describe different reasons and occurrences. And that is in no way equivelent to what was essentially a bloody riot. Not only that but the Soviets didn't even get involved that much, they literally just entered the cities later, the Hungarians did almost all the fighting amongst each other.

>Yet, just like the Giant Squid, the actual presence of these reactionaries is like a fleeting ghost, but they most definitely were there and with massive influence.

Lmao you can't be fucking serious. There is a massive difference between sporadic cases of mob violence and an organized campaign of repression and extermination headed by a specific group. Aptheker provides evidence for the former, but makes only unsubstantiated claims and speculations about the latter. It's obvious that there were reactionaries among the hundreds of thousands of people who took to the streets, but there is absolutely no evidence that the were acting in an organized capacity, or that they had any influence over those elements of the uprising that actually were organized and had influence with Nagy's government.

I've realized the mistake of engaging you. Even if I had transported you in a time machine and demonstrated to you first hand that which I have stated, you would not believe me.... Echo chambers are a frightening thing.

I've realized the mistake of engaging you. Even if I had transported you in a time machine and demonstrated to you first hand that which I have stated, you would not believe me….

That's funny because the people who actually were there, like Peter Fryer or Sandor Kopasci, all contradict your position. Also I'm not even sure you are aware of the actual events if you think anybody had any sympathy for Rakosi or that his regime was anything but a bloody trainwreck. He was forced out of leadership under pressure from the Soviet government and even Aptheker denounces him in his book.

I read through them all, and they all make the same kinds of assertions that Aptheker makes. They cite instances of reactionary violence but provide no evidence for it being organized or tied to any specific group. Nor do they offer any context regarding precise numbers of the reactionary forces or what influence they had over the insurgents. They simply cite the most prominent or gruesome cases of reactionary filth they can find and completely ignore all other elements of the revolution that explicitly denounced reactionaries and their violent acts. In other words they specifically focus on those elements that justify their position and attempt to paint the entire body of rebels with this brush, despite the fact that all evidence points to the bulk of the rebels being sympathetic to socialism and wanting to work with Nagy’s government.

General elections to a unicameral legislature, the grand national assembly, took place every four years to elect ~350 representatives. It only had to meet twice a year though and executive power was held by the State Council which was elected by the assembly from among its members every five years and was in permanent session. There were multiple parties aside from the Romanian Workers' Party (later communist party under Ceausescu) those being primarily the socdem and the agrarians, and as in most eastern bloc countries they were all in a single front of national unity on a single electoral list with next to no external parties and a dozen or so independent candidates who never won being allowed to stand so that >90% of the vote went to the front in which most of the seats went to the 'ruling party' and the rest were distributed among the other parties and representative organisations like unions or youth orgs.

Ceausescu came to power within the party internally having already been minister of agriculture and later deputy minister of the army under gheorghiu-dej and was in the party central committee and the state council. When he died Ceausescu was elected as general secretary of the party as a compromise candidate by the politburo because everyone else was in fighting everyone else. He was then accordingly made president of the state council and proceeded to change the constitution an established a separate executive office of the presidency giving himself personal power and a separately elected by the assembly position.

You’re going to get a lot of dishonest answers, seeing that this is a leftist board, but the truth is that they were barely one step above military occupation at all times. Some nations (as I’m sure you know) did end up getting invaded and reoccupied. All of the eastern bloc nations were hostages to the Russians and all of them dismantled their socialist governments once the Soviets dropped their looming threat of violence.

>as for military intervention, this was usually only done when the Soviets perceived serious threats to socialism, such as Dubček making socdem reforms to Czechoslovakia, and political instability in Afghanistan.

Would the correct leftist position not be an anti-interventionist one, that considers it the responsibility of a people to decide for themselves what direction they want their country to take?

Oh I'm sorry so we shouldn't help a country being invaded by Mujahed flea-bags funded by the CIA, because unlike the soviets THAT is national-self-determination.

Do you understand what kind of idealist horse-shit you're spouting right now? It's not like they had a whole lot of choices considering the CIA's active sabotage of every socialist country. Indeed when the USSR DIDN'T help potentially socialist countries as per their own request we get pic-related

Comparing the Prague Spring to the Mujahideen is pretty stupid tbh. Dubcek and his supporters may have been libs but they had a lot of public support which was certainly close to a majority if not an actual majority. They also weren't violent terrorists going around throwing acid in people's faces. Also Dubcek's government didn't ask for Soviet intervention, the government of Afghanistan did. Also the Soviets had much more of a legitimate national security interest in Afghanistan since it was on their border and the Mujahideen were literally launching attacks into the USSR itself. Basically Afghanistan and Czechoslovakia are not comparable in the slightest and you should feel bad for making such a ridiculous false equivalency. This is coming from somebody who supports the interventions in both Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan btw.

>Dubcek and his supporters may have been libs but they had a lot of public support

The Taliban might have been fundementalists but they had a lot of public support… That's what you sound like. Support based on manipulation, that was what it was.

> They also weren't violent terrorists going around throwing acid in people's faces

No instead they used weapons to shoot (firing first) at soviet troops and threw bricks in the windows of trucks (which is very deadly, I should know). that's omitting the murders and assaults of soldiers and ordinary citizens by said protestors. Or what of the dozens of Radio stations that spread lies and propaganda and incited violence against soviet troops and falsely claimed that they killed children and women, even when they did not do so, or were framed.

>Dubcek's government didn't ask for Soviet intervention

Yes the counter-revolutionaries are going to invite in those that would end their counter-revolution.

>the Soviets had much more of a legitimate national security interest in Afghanistan

Czechoslovakia was in the very heart of the Warsaw pact and its destabilization would provide a massive foothold in Eastern Europe. Don't be fucking obtuse.

Lastly I wasn't talking about Czechoslovakia only, just pointing out how hypocritical it is to talk about "national self-determination" as if manipulated people are actually self-determining. Dubcek's actions were populist garbage that got the attention of people too trusting for their own good, and who were directed to attack their own. That is not self-determination, that is manipulation.

this is burger-education level of retarded. Actually attempt to educate yourself about the history of eastern bloc countries instead of spouting 'muh homogeneous red commie bloc' garbage that western 'scholarship' regarding the cold war begins and ends at.

"Goulash communism" was basically the frightened reaction of the political apparatus to the possibility of a continued legacy of 1956. It fueled, among other contradictory things, Kádár applying for IMF loans in order to artificially level the standard of living, and introducing the hastened market reforms of the sixties that lead to heightened social inequalities and the emergence of a (less and less controlled) petit-bourgeois class. The tragic hilarity of it all is that the "1956 worst case scenario" (Hungary turning to capitalism) presented by some (completely lacking nuance) as the 'objective fact' of 1956 happened organically but slowly, through the functioning of the system.

In any case, and to be very blunt and schematic: goulash communism was basically the political apparatus readjusting the scale of the reallocation of the extracted surplus from frantic industrialization (the hallmark of Rákosi era) to social welfare – the debauchery that showcases what 20th century socialist planning was: a form of technocratic management and control, removed from the working classes, but done in their name. (stop_hitting_yourself.jpg)

The funny thing about Romania denouncing the Warsaw Pact intervention in Czechoslovakia is that it could and should have had already happened under Gheorghiu-Dej in 1956, were it not for their intense ethnic chauvinist hatred of Hungary and Romania's own Hungarian minority, oh, and their intense fear of Moscow. This is geopolitics and diplomacy, mind you, it is done atop the non-divergent soviet model by one of the leaders, hence little to do with what Marxists understand as an economic system. This is exactly what I meant when I used the term surface characteristics.

>but what about the memes?! cool pics?!

My point is that fashion is nothing more than commodity fetishism manifest; glorifying it amounts to glorifying the worst aspects of 20th century socialism at best, a lame attempt at trying to show to capitalist eyes that "we have your nice things too" at worst.

>My point is that fashion is nothing more than commodity fetishism manifest; glorifying it amounts to glorifying the worst aspects of 20th century socialism at best, a lame attempt at trying to show to capitalist eyes that "we have your nice things too" at worst.

It's a microcosm of the differences between commodities under capitalism and socialism. Under capitalism the bottle must be clear for marketing purposes, which unnecessarily increases cost and reduces efficiency because extra energy and labor must be done to remove iron content from the glass. Under communism this is not the case, and so the glass is instead its natural greenish color.

All liquid drinks were sold in glass bottles be they juices, lemonades, seltzer, milk, or kefir. When you brought these glass bottles back to the store for reusing (a.k.a recycling), the stores paid a tangible amount per bottle. The same deal was with paper and metal scrap. This is very similar to the war-time efforts in the USA when glass, metal and paper were given to the military in return for money and items like movie tickets. There were even organized competitions to turn in wastepaper among the Pioneers.

All stuff was often fixed at home. Even TV’s and radio were given specific instructions on how to repair them should they have issue

You know, you could cite internal CIA documents on the soviet economy, calorie consumption and other things and you'll get called a communist for it. It's quite refreshing to see a view of soviet quality of life that is unironically a million times more positive than your run-of-the-mill anti-communist propagandist (who ironically eats up propaganda fabricated by the CIA)

The physical culture of the USSR reminds me of the discrepancy between the promotion of sports (not just in propaganda posters and the olympics but also construction of pools and gyms so that practically no one anywhere in the USSR did not have access to them) and the real state of public health.

I think that in this case Cuba is actually much more inspirational for the promotion of public health under socialism.

The real state of public health was very high. Everyone had military training, everyone teens to adults were relatively fit. Hell My grandfather is 80 and had heart surgery and numerous yet he's as strong as an ox, literally. I remember once in the hospital they were checking him for signs of a stroke and did the "squeeze fingers" test and the Doctor said to do it as hard as he could, obviously thinking of him as a 'frail old man'. It was funny to see him help in pain. Sports and work-out culture today is terrible.

I looked up olympic medal stats and apparently the USSR is #1 for average medals (considering they participated in less than half as many games as the US) and the DDR is #1 for average medals per capita.

>"Bulgaria is the only Communist-ruled country in the world where the Soviet Ambassador still sits on the platform at all important public occasions and accompanies the Premier on his tours of the provinces. It is the only country where on festive occasions the streets and public buildings are hung with giant portraits of the members of the Soviet Politburo side by side with those of their Bulgarian opposite numbers. It is the only country where the ruling party, for many years the most profuse in its protestations of loyalty to the 'wise leadership of Comrade Khrushchev,' hurriedly approved his dismissal without expressing any emotion whatsoever and assured his successors of the Bulgarian party's unfailing devotion."

<Candidate that likely won the first round is rejected from the ballot because the KPRF won't sponsor him again (claiming they already won) and he can't get the signatures to get on it himself as an indy

>Instead of an LDPR pro-Putin candidate it is an "independent" pro-Putin candidate

While we're on the topic, can we talk for a moment about the socialist/communist parties of former Warsaw Pact countries? How are they holding up? All I know is that the successor of Hoxha's party is now the ruling party in Albania.

Bulgaria and Romania have ruling socialist(social democratic) parties that are considered to be successors (it's common theme that communists move to social democracy) to their communist parties.Czech republic has communist party in their Parliament as well as social democrat party. Slovakia has soft social democratic party that has many ex communists in their ranks. Hungary had strong socialist(social democratic) part, but it's not very small. Poland is the most reactionary country right now with left losing everything in 2015 elections.

I too can spout platitudes about the inferiority of soviet tech over western. One thing you come to realize is that there's a certain language used to describe anything soviet that makes it seem a lot worse than it is, even if it is factual. Objectivity is used as a cover for pathological anti-communism. You can copy the same style and make everything about the USSR seem better. Just to give a random example, if you take the facts about nutrition in the USSR compared to the USA (this alone is a far stretch considering most prefer to stick to the usual breadline/starvation/empty shelves memes) then an anti-communist would probably word it as follows:

>Despite total calorie intake and protein intake being one of the highest in the world and very close to the US, meat consumption is significantly lower and the availability of fresh fruits and vegetables is low aswell.

But you could also word it as:

>Despite the massive initial developmental gap and the destruction of WW2, the USSR has managed to approach parity in nutrition with the USA. The higher intake of plant-based food means the USSR is more ready than the USA to tackle environmental problems in the future.

Explain in detail why the Tupolev-144 is significantly inferior to the Concorde without using Wikipedia otherwise I can't be arsed to care for your hot takes.

>Getting this arsemad that I said a Soviet plane wasn't as good as a foreign peer

The LARP is strong with this one. It isn't "anti-communism" to state the Tupolev, which was plagued with accidents, poor comfortability and quite frankly limited utility, was not as good a plane as the concorde. It's okay that some aspects of soviet technology were not as good as foreign competitors, you don't have to white-knight in to defend every single soviet plane, tank, and gun design. I mean tbf at-least the soviets had a supersonic jet.

But in terms of aerospace engineering, the Concorde was something of immense quality for its time: no need to go full fanboi to defend the Tupolev mate.

And if you demand an essay from someone i response to a small comment, you sound like a melt ngl.

Soviet Union had multiple first in aviation, not only the Tupolev Tu-144 (first supersonic passenger jet), but also Yak-series aircraft, including Yakovlev Yak-40 (the first regional jet), and first double jet turbofan engine and first four-engine fixed-wing aircraft (Russky Vityaz), first airliner and purpose-designed bomber (Ilya Muromets), modern helicopter, Sikorsky-series helicopters (some of these might have been invented in the US)

Were these accidents, comfortability and utility really any worse than the Concorde? You have done exactly what I expected.

And yes, sometimes one has to defend soviet design, as can be seen in the recent thread where an amerilard glorified the stinger and unironically believed it had a 90% effectiveness against soviet helicopters.

In what way? All I have ever heard in criticism of the Tu-144 was some shit about noise and bullshit about aerodynamics and how the USSR 'stole' bad designs of the Concorde. Despite this I have not seen a single primary argument about how it was shit.

So was the Concorde. Despite this the plane used by NASA for research was the Tu-144 and not the Concorde.

>poor comfortability

My grandfather flew on these. He said it was quiet and comfortable and made a 7 hour flight in hours from Moscow to Alma-Ata. Considering that he, in his youth, did engineering and repair work on passenger airplanes, I'd trust him more than your vague statements.

Also according to the Tupolev bureau:

To quote, " It should be added that the engines were less perfect (by specific parameters the engines of TU-144 a/c were brought close to “Olympus” only in their last modification). All these negative initial data were compensated in the course of development of the project by high aerodynamic cleanness of TU-144 which was achieved by making the design more complicated and by lowering maintainability of the aircraft."

I'll add to this some more facts, the Concorde's cruising speed was limited to 2000 KmPH, despite being cited as higher. The Tu-144 had a higher cruising speed, a comparable fuel efficiency and similar range. The usual comparisons made however, use the official statistics of the international market presentation. The Tu-144's modifications after it's debut were all within the USSR and thus not counted. Thus the comparison is usually of the older, advanced Concorde models, compared with the semi-prototype versions of the Tu-144. A comparative analysis of equivalent class flights is possible only after its official presentation on the world market. All changes and additions to the already existing models could be used only on domestic flights (at the discretion of the originating country) and were not official in the accounting of TTD and aircraft parameters. In a word - as a comparison, you can take only samples of the Tu144 with engine models "C" (or earlier). Concorde, in turn, almost annually exhibited its advanced models at international air shows.

Thus the comparison in terms of data cited is like comparing the data of the original AK-47 to an M4A4 carbine rather than comparing the latter to an AK-74M or an AK-12. Obviously an older prototype of one rifle will be inferior to the improved new version of a different rifle.

>LARP

learn what the acronym means before spamming that as a buzzword

>some aspects of soviet technology were not as good as foreign competitors

No-one said otherwise, just that you're

A) Wrong about the Tu-144

B) Making a falsely equivalent comparison.

>don't have to white-knight

Again, learn what you're saying before blurting buzzwords

>every single soviet plane, tank, and gun design

The poster did not defend every single one, they pointed out that you can make an argument that ANYTHING is garbage by wording and re-drawing the line of achievement.

1) The Oscar is an SSGN, designed to take out surface targets from 500-600km away with heavy, high-tech cruise missiles (or a single nuclear tipped one).

2) SSBN's are indeed useful, you can't be 100% sure you're trailing an SSBN or just a decoy, not to mention if you have another SSN on your tail ready to take you out. Also you don't know how many are out there at a time. It takes a few minutes to launch all the missiles on a Delta IV class submarine, at well below periscope depth, and even if you sink the submarine, the missile is already in flight.

There was an excerpt of some documentary posted in the other thread about how Soviet jets were designed to be extremely durable and reliable, to the point that they didn't even bother to clean their airfields.

Does anyone know what's up with soviet HDI? The UN report from 1990 says 0.920, which to me seems realistic. But most sources give somewhere around 0.8. Has the soviet HDI been retroactively reduced by using the current day value of the ruble or something?

also, it's very annoying to read him talk about the repression constantly, when all the interviewees clearly aren't having misty eyed memories of being interrogated by the stasi, but of an, in some senses, more humane society

Newsreel Pioneer - the first children's newsreel in the USSR. Newsreel began to appear in 1931. #КиножурналПионерия №1 1978 release - Inventors always dream; Poems about winter; What is my vocation; After the call.

Newsreel Pioneer devoted to the life of the All-Union Pioneer Organization named after Vladimir Lenin.

The goal of the pioneer organization is to educate young fighters for the cause of the Communist Party of the USSR, which is expressed in the organization's motto. To the call: Pioneer, be ready for the struggle for the cause of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union ! - should answer: Always ready !

The initiator of the creation of the magazine #Пионерия - Arsha Ovanesova. By the mid-1950s, she had removed about two hundred of his issues, starting with the first. The frequency of release of the Pioneer magazine issue in the 1970s-1980s was once a month. Newsreel Pioneer came out in 1987 and was devoted to the theme of youth and childhood.

Pioneer newsreel plots illuminate the life of schoolchildren, the activities of the pioneer organization, talk about learning, life and leisure of children in the #СССР

The All-Union Pioneer Organization named after Vladimir Lenin (VPO named after Vladimir Lenin) is a mass children's organization in the USSR. #ПионерскаяОрганизация was formed by the decision of the All-Russian Komsomol Conference on May 19, 1922, since May 19 is celebrated as Pioneer Day. Until 1924, the pioneer organization bore the name of Spartacus, and after it passed away, #ВладимирЛенин Lenin received his name. The management of the pioneer organization was carried out by the Komsomol Central Committee.

Pioneer solemn promise

“I, (last name, first name), joining the ranks of the All-Union Pioneer Organization named after Vladimir Lenin, before the face of my comrades, solemnly promise: ardently love and take care of your Motherland, live, as the great Lenin taught, as the Communist Party teaches, to always fulfill the Laws of the Soviet pioneers Union. "

Laws of pioneers

The pioneer, the young builder of communism, is working and studying for the good of the Motherland, preparing to become its protector.

A pioneer is an active fighter for peace, a friend to pioneers and children of working people of all countries.

#Пионер is equal to the Communists, is preparing to become a Komsomol, leads the October.

The pioneer values ​​the honor of his organization, strengthens his authority with his deeds and actions.

Pioneer is a reliable comrade, respects seniors, takes care of younger ones, always acts according to conscience and honor.

The pioneer organization’s anthem is considered to be the March of Young Pioneers - a Soviet pioneer song written in 1922 by two talented members of the Komsomol - pianist Sergei Kaydan-Deshkin and poet Alexander Zharov.

Soar fires blue nights

We are pioneers - children of workers!

The era of light years is near,

Pioneer cry: Always be ready!

Young and brave, friendly crowd

We will be ready to work and fight.

We will be an example of struggle and work.

Pioneer cry: Always be ready!

Happy step with a fun song

We stand for Komsomol

The era of light years is near,

Pioneers cry: Always #БудьГотов

Let's break the song together

For the pioneer family of labor,

We will be an example of struggle and work.

Pioneer cry: Always be ready!

We are raising the red banner

Children of workers - feel free to follow us!

The era of light years is near,

Pioneer cry: Always be ready!

Pioneer attributes

The most important pioneer attributes are the squad banner, the detachment flags, the forge and the drum, which accompany all the solemn pioneer rituals. In each pioneer squad there is a pioneer room, where the corresponding attributes are stored and meetings of the squad council are held. In the pioneer room, as a rule, there is a ritual stand with pioneer attributes, a Leninist corner and a corner of international friendship. In the school and in the classes, pioneers produce and post handwritten design guard and detachment wall newspapers.

When you think about it, the different uses of this location over time are a pretty good metaphor for how Russia has changed over time. At first you have a church, institution of tsarist opression. Then come the hopes and dreams, a palace of the soviets. Ideas make way for pragmatism and need, and that plan is scrapped. But you do get the world's biggest open air swimming pool, it might not have been the original plan but it's still pretty good. And at the end there is capitalist restoration, removing the pool and putting a tacky replica of an old church.

Looking at my younger sister's final history exam, the anti-communist bias on the cold war is insane. Both the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia are mentioned but not a word about the dozens of US interventions, not even Vietnam or Korea are discussed in the exam.

But it has one funny anecdote about a Belgian girl who lived a few years in east Berlin in the 60s because her father was a correspondent there. The father explains to her how it's justified for the DDR to keep people there because the state pays for education for people to become doctors and engineers and people just freely going to countries with better wages is harmful, the DDR also has need of doctors and engineers. The girl then asks him if the same applies if she'd study and move to Moscow. "No", he responds, "Only if you go to New York".

Ofcourse, the question asks you to explain how her father is corrupted by politics but he actually raises a very good point. Preventing brain drain in socialist countries is partly what kept them ahead of the whole rest of the capitalist world (because only in the core capitalist countries which amounted to like 10% of the world population was life marginally better than in eastern europe). Nigeria trains a lot of doctors and engineers and all of them go to the United States.

To be fair, when anti-communism is drilled so hard literally every anecdote seems bad. Someone defending limiting freedom of movement to prevent brain drain, a very logical thing to do, can be made out to be a bad person especially since the question is framed that way.

This is a two part documentary about the Soviet Union in the 1960s, at the height of its economic powers. It's a excellent showcase of all that is good about communism. However, the full video is not online. A few small clips can be viewed on youtube. Can we pool our efforts to get the full version of this video online? I think this would be excellent for propaganda. There is so much disinformation and very little documentation of all the good things about the Soviet Union.

Somebody should make a video addressing the comments tbh. I’d say BadMouse should but I kind of doubt that he’ll take the time. Either way the video is a good initial exposure to different perspectives on the GDR.